‘When we learn all the answers, they change the questions…’ @cristobalcobo  

oxford  internet  ins1tute  

Old Paradigm

New Paradigm

consumer  

consumer  

company  

company  

“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black “

*(h.ford,1922)

Remark  about  the  Model  T  in  1909,  published  in  his  autobiography  My  Life  and  Work  (1922)  

“individual  playing  both  roles  consumers  of  services  as  well  as  creators  of  added  value  services”.  

Challenge:  alignment  of  engagement  

hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=  

hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=  

hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity%2C+experience&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=  

hEp://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=user%2Ccommunity%2Cexperience%2Cuser+-­‐+driven&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=  

A  

B  testbed  

 The  Documentary  Network  by  Windows  Phone  Design  Studio  youtube.com/watch?v=lciYKwVLTuk  

Connecting - Trends in UI, Interaction, Experience Design    

User- center design (‘pull’)

Domain  Landscape  of  the  Living  Lab  Research  Map    

(Pallot  et  al.,  2010)  

User-centricity User-centred Design Tools in FI Projects

ques9onnaires  

focus  groups  

interviews  

prac9cal  workshops  

shadowing  

cultural  probes  pen  &  paper  mock-­‐ups  

fully  func9onal  prototypes  

in-­‐home  observa9on  

think-­‐aloud  sessions  

user  diaries  

field  studies  

personas  or  scenarios  

eye-­‐tracking  studies  

scenario-­‐based  focus  groups  

s9mulus  material  like  comic  strips,  videos,  theatre  performances,  drama9sed  stories   usability  tes9ng  

longitudinal  evalua9on  weekly  teleconferences   beta  launch  

Source: 29 0f 55 respondents (working on 35 different Future Internet projects) use this tools (2012).

bottom up innovation (‘push’)

•  ICT change power relations in (almost) all domains.•  Technologies can be understood as a trend amplifier. •  Can empower users of all kinds: citizens, consumers,

workers, patients, audiences...

(van  Dijk,  2010)  

2011  

How to engage with users in order to adopt an active role in co-creation & co-design?

•  SOPA  &  PIPA  protest  [2012]    •  English  Wikipedia  +~7,000  websites  coordinated  a  service  blackout,  to  raise  awareness.    •  160  million  people  viewed  Wikipedia's  banner.    •  Google  collected  +7  million  signatures.  •  BoycoEs  of  companies  and  organiza1ons  that  support  the  legisla1on.  

Network  Type:   Architecture   Openness   Control   Modulariza9on  

3.0  Collabora1on       Many-­‐to-­‐Many   Managed   High   High    

2.0  Contribu1ng        

Many-­‐to-­‐Many   Networked   Moderate    (i.e.  reputa1on)  

Moderate    (i.e.  simple  task)  

1.0  Sharing     One-­‐to-­‐many   Open   Low   Low  

(DuEon,  2008)  

3  Levels  of  Collabora9ve  Networks  Organiza9ons  

Clay  Shirky's  Cogni1ve  Surplus:  Crea1vity  and  Generosity  in  a  Connected  Age  

reCAPTCHA    is  a  type  of  challenge-­‐response  that  ask  users  to  enter  words  seen  in  distorted  text  images  on  screen  (it  helps  digi1ze  the  text  of  books,  while  protec1ng  websites  from  bots).    The  system  has  been  reported  as  displaying  over  100  million  CAPTCHAs  every  day.  

New ideas that can be turned into applications that add value. The ability to collaborate between people: a) of different backgrounds (micro-contexts),

b) with different perspectives, and c) possessing different knowledge. Human centric systemic innovation instruments (encouraging the interaction between all stakeholders).

Eriksson  et  al.,2005  

co-creation/co-innovation

Khan  Academy  Lite  Raspberry  Pi  

hLp://kalite.learningequality.org  

(Pallot  e

t  al.,  2010)  Contextual & social based adoption & adaptation of ICT:

•  Living  Labs  +  User  Driven  Innova9on  +  User  Centred  Design  +  User  Created  Content  +  User  Group  Experience  (socio-­‐emo1onal)  

…BUT •  The  principles  (usability,  accessibility  or  technology  customiza9on)  are  more  

manifested  in  theore9cal  considera9ons  rather  than  in  prac9ce.    •  Significant  number  of    “one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all”  paradigm  is  common  in  the  market.  

~40,000  solu1on  submissions  [~300,000  solvers  -­‐200  countries]  Awards:  $5,000  to  $1+M    

problems and challenges

Communications tools don’t get socially

interesting until they get technologically boring

(Shirky, 2008)

Interesting social innovations may not be interesting technically (Bernstein, et al, 2011)

Flash  mobs  strike  again  for  the  9th  annual  ‘no  pants’  subway  ride  

Social  Media’s  Influence  on  the  Arab  Spring  

Privacy  or  data  protec1on?  

(Bernstein,  A

ckerman,  Chi  &  M

iller,  2011).  

Conflation of usefulness and usability Usefulness: asks whether a system solves an important problem. Usability: asks how users interact with the system.

“In the technology industry

many time features & functionalities is prioritized

rather than usefulness”

www.leapmotion.com

hEp://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com  

‘The  most  beau1ful,  powerful  mapping  

service  ever’  

iOS6                                                        Google  Map  

Challenge: How to create meaningful synergies between users & technology?

 Problems  in  the  complex  innova1on  systems.      

•  Suboptimal degree of interaction with users (i.e.  only  a  few  companies  effec1vely  involve  users  in  their  innova1on  process).    

•  Discrepancy between theory and practice.  (i.e    early  involvement  of  users  par1cularly  in  early  stage  of  the  projects.)      

•  Mechanisms to integrate increasingly multidisciplinary knowledge (gathered  in  diverse  interac1on  contexts)    

•  Adequate translation and transformation of user insights (into  more  technical  requirements).      

•  Path dependency& lock-in (i.e    difficult  to  break  into  new  grounds/paradigms).    

(Eriksson  et  al.,2005  and  De  Moor,  et  al  2010)  

(Fiedler,  2011,  Offenberg  &  Pipek,  2008;  Seserv.Org  ).    

Future Internet research towards an “Open Development Model” different stakeholders combining efforts and benefit.

conclusion Users at the center of the Internet Ecosystem

Usability is not enough to improve software poorly designed

1. High-flexible software architectures (from feedback to co-creation + cognitive surplus). 2. Legislation need to keep pace with the ever-increasing speed of user-driven change (i.e. 3D printers)

3. Systematic participation of users (iterative loop). 4. Cross-disciplinary methodologies (and knowledge integration tools to deal with complexity).

5. Adopting various IPR models (providing more flexible uses). 6. Clear incentives (combining extrinsic with intrinsic motivation) I.e. pull-push

7. QoE matters more than QoS to users. 8. Open to different cultures, languages (but localisation‐friendly, context based).

9. Increase transparency (but also awareness and simplicity) about data uses.

@cristobalcobo  hEp://1ny.cc/ppts  

Oxford  Internet  Ins1tute  Research  Fellow.  

References  •  Almirall,  E.,  &  Wareham,  J.  (2008).  Living  Labs  and  open  innova1on:  roles  and  applicability.  The  Electronic  Journal  for  Virtual  

OrganizaDons  and  Networks,  10(3),  21–46.  •  Bernstein,  M.  S.,  Ackerman,  M.  S.,  Chi,  E.  H.,  &  Miller,  R.  C.  (2011).  The  trouble  with  social  compu1ng  systems  research.  In  

Proceedings  of  the  2011  annual  conference  extended  abstracts  on  Human  factors  in  compuDng  systems  (pp.  389–398).  Retrieved  from  hEp://dl.acm.org/cita1on.cfm?id=1979618  

•  Coetzee,  H.,  Du  Toit,  I.-­‐M.,  &  Herselman,  M.  (2012).  Living  Labs  in  South  Africa:  An  analysis  based  on  five  case  studies.  Retrieved  from  hEp://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/handle/10204/6082  

•  De  Moor,  K.,  Berte,  K.,  De  Marez,  L.,  Joseph,  W.,  Deryckere,  T.,  &  Martens,  L.  (2010).  User-­‐driven  innova1on?  Challenges  of  user  involvement  in  future  technology  analysis.  Science  and  Public  Policy,  37(1),  51–61.  

•  DuEon,  W.  (2008).  Collabora1ve  network  organiza1ons:  new  technical,  managerial  and  social  infrastructures  to  capture  the  value  of  distributed  intelligence.  Retrieved  from  hEp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1302893  

•  Eriksson,  M.,  Niitamo,  V.-­‐P.,  &  Kulkki,  S.  (2005).  State-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art  in  u1lizing  Living  Labs  approach  to  user-­‐centric  ICT  innova1on-­‐a  European  approach.  Lulea:  Center  for  Distance-­‐spanning  Technology.  Lulea  University  of  Technology  Sweden:  Lulea.  Online  under:  hSp://www.  cdt.  ltu.  se/main.  php/SOA_LivingLabs.  pdf.  Retrieved  from  hEp://www.vinnova.se/upload/dokument/verksamhet/1ta/stateozheart_livinglabs_eriksson2005.pdf  

•  Nicolas  nova.  (2009,  October  15).  Field  research  and  interacDon  design.  Retrieved  from  hEp://www.slideshare.net/nicolasnova/field-­‐research-­‐and-­‐interac1on-­‐design  

•  Pallot,  M.,  Trousse,  B.,  Senach,  B.,  &  Scapin,  D.  (2010).  Living  Lab  Research  Landscape:  From  User  Centred  Design  and  User  Experience  towards  User  Cocrea1on.  Presented  at  the  First  European  Summer  School  “Living  Labs.”  Retrieved  from  hEp://hal.inria.fr/inria-­‐00612632  

•  Paul  Isakson.  (2008,  March  22).  What’s  Next  In  MarkeDng  &  AdverDsing.  News  &  Poli1cs.  Retrieved  from  hEp://www.slideshare.net/paulisakson/whats-­‐next-­‐in-­‐marke1ng-­‐adver1sing-­‐318143  

•  J.A.G.M.  van  Dijk.  “Conceptual  Framework”.  In:  Study  on  the  Social  Impact  of  ICT  (2010),  pp.  1–30.  •  Hess,  J.,  Offenberg,  S.,  &  Pipek,  V.  (2008).  Community  driven  development  as  par1cipa1on?:  involving  user  communi1es  in  a  

sozware  design  process.  In  Proceedings  of  the  Tenth  Anniversary  Conference  on  ParDcipatory  Design  2008  (pp.  31–40).  Retrieved  from  hEp://dl.acm.org/cita1on.cfm?id=1795240  

•  Fiedler,  M.,  et  al.  Future  Internet  Assembly  Research  Roadmap–Towards  Framework  8:  Research  PrioriDes  for  the  Future  Internet.  Technical  report,  Future  Internet  Assembly  Working  Group,  2011.